Broad. Cos., 720 F.2d 231, 242 (2d Cir.1983) (noting that de minimis rule permits “the literal copying of a small and usually insignificant portion of the plaintiff’s work”). The copyright notices are protected material, but they form such a small part of the overall codes that they cannot be considered significant in isolation. See Newton v. Penguin/Berkley Pub. USA, No. 13 Civ. 1283, 2014 WL 505191, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2014) (applying de minimis rule where defendants copied only “a tiny fraction of Plaintiff’s work … so trivial as to fall below the quantitative threshold of substantial similarity”) (internal quotation marks omitted).[1] Rather than find liability based on such minimal copying alone, this Court would instead conclude that copying of the copyright pages does “not warrant a finding of infringement given their relative contribution to the overall” work. Altai, 982 F.2d at 714–15. Nor would the Court withhold merger under Kregos. Unlike soft expression infused with taste and opinion, model regulations that mirror enacted laws more
- ↑ The Court recognizes the apparent irony of holding that virtually identical works are not “substantially similar” in the merger context. Though the dissent in Kregos highlighted this very tension, Nimmer notes that the term “substantial similarity” should be understood to connote “a legal conclusion that enough copying has taken place to warrant finding infringement.” 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03.
69
